## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 1690 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C AL VI N C. M O NTG O M ERY, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 06 -30 07 1-DRH

—David R. H ern don, Chief Judg e.

A RGUED D ECE MBE R 12, 2008

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 13, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, F LA UM, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fed er al jur y c on vic te d C alv in Mo n t g o me r y o f b e i n g a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m. M ontg om er y no w appeal s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f h is m ot ion to su p p re ss h is s ta t e m en t im p lica tin g h im se lf f o r th a tc r i me . He a r g u e s th a th i s s t a t e me n twa s i n vo l untar y b ecause i t was gi ven in re sponse to prom ises o f lenie nc y, i nv o k i nga s uppo se d pe rs e r ul e pr o hibi ting the pol i ce fro m m aki ng pro m i ses to a suspect i n or der t o extr act a co nfe ssi on. A l ter n at ivel y, M ontg om er y a rgues2 N o. 08

- 1690 th athi s st at ementwas i nv o l unt ar y unde r a t o ta l i tyof th e ci rcum sta nces approach. H e al so ar gues that th e p olic e f ai l ed to honorhi s r i ght t o si l ence and to cut o ffquesti oni ng. For the foll ow ing reason s, w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s denia l o fthe m oti on t o supp re ss.

I . B a c kg r o und I n the ear l y m or ni ng hour s o fA pri l 13 , 20 04, A ubrey K el l er of the EastS t. Loui s Po l i ce Depar tm ent m ade a tr affi c sto p o fthe c artha t M o nt g o m er y was r i di ngi n. M o nt g o me r y, wi th o u tb e i n gt o l d t o d o s o , g o to u to ft he car a n d dropped so m ethi ng ( K el l ercl ai m ed i t s ounded l i ke a be erbo ttl e) o n the gr ound. W h en K el l erdem anded th at M ont gom ery m ake h is han d s visib le, M ont gom ery b e g a n t urningt o wa r ds Ke l l er and the n dr o pp e d a secon d obj ect on the gr ound. Fr om the sound that se co nd o bj ec t m ade , Kel l ers ur m i se d tha t it w as a g un. K elle r then s aw M ontg om er y k i ck at the s eco nd o bj ect, an d Kel l erthe n h ea r d the so un d o fthe g un s k i tt er i ng acr os s the pave m ent, and saw i t s top o n the gr ound near th e d river’ s side of the car. K e lle r arrested M ont gom ery an d t o o khi m t o the Ea stS t. Lo ui s po l i ce s ta ti o n, b o o k i ng hi m f orunl aw ful use o fa w eap on bya fel on. Kell er te st ified in la te r p ro c ee d in gs th at d u rin g t h e c ou rs e of his conta ct with appell ant, M ontg om er y di d not a pp earto be drunk or u n d er the i nfl uence o fdrugs, and i n f act that M ontg om er y e xecuted the turn- ar ound- whi l e - k i c ki ng- thegu n m an eu ve r w ith ou t h av i n g a n y p ro b lem s w ith h is bal ance.N o. 08

- 1690 3 A . Fi r stpol i ce i ntervi ew L at er thatm or ni ng, M ar i on Ri dd l e, a detect i ve w i th th e E ast St. L ou is poli ce d ep artm en t, attem p ted to i nt erview M ont gom ery. R idd le gave M ont gom ery a form c o nt a i ningthe s t a nd a r d M i r anda warni ngs a nd had M ontgom er y sign the f or m to i nd i cate thathe unders too d hi s r i ghts. M ontg om er y then told R i dd l e he did notwish t o g i v e a s t a t e me n t, a n d R i d d l e e n d e d th e i n t e r v i e w. The i nter vi ew w as not vi deotaped, and Ri dd l e l ate r te st ified th at p o l i c e d ep ar tm en t p olic y a t t h at tim e d id n otreq u ire offic er s t o v id eo ta p e a ll int er vie w s. T h is fi r sti nt er vi ew , w hi chb eg ana l i tt l e afte r 8 : 00 o n the m or ni ng o fOctobe r 13, ended by about 8: 10.

B. Rol l cal l r oom discussi on Riddle i nfo rm ed Desm on d W i l l i am s, ano therdetec ti ve wi th th e Ea s tS t

. Lo u i s P o l i c e D e p a r t me n t, th a tMo n t g o mer y d id n otw ish to m ak e a st at em en t. R id d le a l so to ld W i lliam s that, bas ed upon the info rm ati on they ha d on hand , M ontg om er y m ay have bee n a fel on i n posse ssi on ofa fi re ar m , an d thus s ubj ect to federa l cr i m i nal char ges . W i l l i am s then cal l ed i n Paul H ei ser, a speci ala ge nt with the Bu re au of A l cohol, Tobacco , Fi re ar m s and E x p l osi ves ( A TF) to a ssi st w i th M ontg om er y’ s ca se. H ei serwent to the pol i ce depar tm ent b uil ding, wh er e W i l l i am s br i efed him on t h e case an d ran M ont gom ery’s cri m inal history th r o ug h a da taba se . Hei se r, a lon gwi thW i l l i ams, c o ndu cted i nter vi ew s with Se an Bel l and N athanielH ol m es, two othe r pa ss en g er s i n the c arwi thM o nt g o m er y a t th e ti m e o fthe tr affi c st op. S om eti m e be tw een 2 : 30 and 3 :00,4 N o. 08

- 1690 H eiser and W il li am s th en w en t d ow n to th e d ep artm en t’s j a i l, wh e r e Mo n t g o me r y wa s p r e s e n t i n a c e l l wi t h s o me of t h e o th er p eo p le a r r es te d d u rin g t h at m or n in g’s tra ffic st op . B ec au se th e y c o u ld n otsp ea k t o h im w ith h is c e l l ma t e s p r e s e n t, Wi l l i a ms a n d H e i s e r w a l k e d Mo n t g o mer y up to the r o l l c al l r o o m a t th e st at i o n. W i ll iam s i nt r o duce d Hei se r t o M o nt g o m er y a nd e xp l a i n e d w h y h e w a s i n th e p o l i c e st a t i o n . Wi l l i a ms sai d that the y w anted to ta l k t o M ontg om er y, but not di r ec tly abo utthe f ac ts ofhi s ca se . H ei se r te st i fi ed tha t th e d i s c u s s i o n t o u c h e d o n Mo n t g o me r y ’ s ma r i t a l p r o b l e ms an d hi s dr i nk i ng, a nd M o nt g o m er y a l so a sk ed why fed er al a u th or itie s w er e get tin g in vo lve d

. T h e tw o in ve st igat or s cl ai m ed that because t hey di d not intend to speak w i th M ontg om er y about th e speci fi cs o fhi s ca se, they d id n ot give h im a s e t of M i r anda w ar n in gs be for e t h is di sc us si o n. W hen H ei serto l d M ontg om er y that he w as prese nt at th e s t a t i o n b e c a us e the p o l i c e h a d r e v i e we d h i s c r i m i nal hi sto ryr epor t a nd suspecte d he w as a fel on i n posse ssi on of a firea rm , M on tg om er y t old th e tw o invest iga to rs , “W ell, that’ s no t m y fi re ar m . ” Heis err esponded that the o ther tw o pas se n ger s in the carhad gi ven s tat em ents, and that th e po l i ce woul d exa m ine th e g un fo r fi ng er pr i nt s an d woul d t r ac e th e g un b ac kt o M o nt g o m er y i fthe y f ound hi s fi ng er pr i nt s o n i t. M o nt g o m er y a g ain s ai d tha t th e w eap on w as no t his, an d H e is e r said th at ifM ont gom ery w an te d to “e x p lain [h is] s id e o f th e s t o r y,” H eis er co u ld ta ke h im u p st air s, ad vis e h im of h is rig h ts , an d leth im gi ve a s tat em ent.N o. 08

- 1690 5 D u r i n gth i s c o n v e r s a t i o n i n th e r o l l c a l l r o o m, Mo n t g o mer y a ske d H ei serwh at sor t o fj ai l ti m e he coul d expect ifthe ca se w en t federa l. H e is e r r e p li ed that the sta tu tory m axi m um was ten yea rs . ( H ei sercl ai m s that he w as una wa r e a t th i s t i me th a t Mo n t g o me r y wo u l d b e se nte nc ed unde ra n Ar m ed Car ee r Cr i m i na l pr o vi si o n o fthe se nt en ci ngg ui del i ne s, r esu l tingi n a l o ng erpr i so n s en ten ce th an ten yea rs.) M ont gom ery told H eiser, “Idon ’t w ant t en ye ar s. ” A ftersom e add i ti onalback- and-f or th o n the c onse quences o fst ate ve rs us fed eralchar ges , M ontgom ery agreed to ac c o m p a n y the officers up stairs fora v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w.

C. F o r ma l s t a t e me nt A roun d 4: 00 p m , H eiser, W il li am s , and M ont gom ery w ent up sta i rs fr om the ro l l cal l r oo m to a pol i ce inter vi ew ro om i n or der t o gi ve a vi deotaped st ate m ent. H ei ser te st ified atth e s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g th at M on tg om er y d id n oth av e a n y t ro u b le n av iga tin g h is w ay u p st air s, n or d id he l oo k drunk, sl eepy, o r in a n y o therway i m pai re d du ring thi s t i m e. A s the i nter vi ew beg an, H eiser pla ced an AT F Ad vi ce of Rights form i n front of M ont gom ery. M ont gom ery i m m edi at ely no ti ce d tha t th e ATF f o r m was di ffer en t from the form he h ad signed earli er that da y i n h is int ervi ew w i thRi ddl e. To s ho w the b as i c si m i l ar i tyo fthe for m s, W illiam s le ft t h e ro om to ret rie ve an E as t St . L ou is Po l i c e De pa r t men ta dv i c e o fr i g ht s f or m. T he v i de o t a pe i n th e i n t e r v i e w r o o m c o n t i n u e d t o r o l l w h e n Wi l l i a ms l eft. H ei seras ked M ontg om er y t o gi ve hi m h i s a dd re ss6 N o. 08

- 1690 and a few o therper sonaldetails. M ontg om er y a ske d H ei se r i fBe l l a nd Hol m es , the o th ertwo pas se ng er s i n the c ar , also h ad to giv e s ta te m e n ts . H eis er , evid en tly think i ngtha tMo nt gom er y h a d a s k e d w heth erth e t wo had gi ven s tat em ents, noti fthey had to gi ve sta te m ents, r e pl i e d tha tthe y di d. M o nt g o m er y c o nt i nued to e xpr es s hi s puz zl ement abou t w hy his case h ad to go fede ral, asking H eiser, “C an ’t you j ust hel p m e?” H ei serto l d M on tg om er y in re sponse,

“ I ’ m he l pi ngy o u mor e tha n y o u k no w. ” He i s e r t e s t i fi ed a t th e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g th a t h e me a n t t o s a y th a the w as h el ping M ontg om er y b y b ri ngi ng char ges ag ai nst hi m . I fM ontg om er y t oo k a dvantag e of the subst ance ab u se tre at m en t a n d vo c at ion al t r a i n in g a va ilab le t o h im i n pr i s o n, h e w oul d b e ab l e t o turn hi s l i fe a r o un d; H ei s e r di d no t o ffe r thi s mor e ful s o me e xp l a na t i o n to M ontg om er y, however

. M ontg om er y a gai n ask ed H eise r w hy t h e ca se coul dn ’ t j ust be a sta te case , and H ei ser to ld h im , “It is w h at it is an d it ca n ’t b e u n ra ve led .” Taki ng a differ ent t ack, the i nter vi ew vi deo then showed H eiser tel li n g M ont gom ery, “T hin k pos iti ve. You ’re l oo ki ng atev er y neg ati ve thi ng ab ou t thi s. ” Heis er c l a r i fi e d thi s s t a t e m ent du r i ngh i s t e s t i mon ya tthe s up press i on hea ring as well, st ati ng tha t he m eant that M ontgom er y s houl d be g l ad that nei therhe no r an yone el se w as hurt, despi te the f act that h e had a gun i n hi s pos ses sion d uring a traffic stop by a p o lic e officer. M ont gom ery aga i n to l d H ei ser, “Idon’ t want a federa l cas e, ” a nd H ei ser thi s t i m e t ol d h im , “The sta te coul d be worse

. ” Heis er tes ti fi ed at the su pp re ssi on hea ri ng tha t in hi s e xperi enceN o. 08

- 1690 7

as an i nvest i gat or, sta te penal ti es f or unlawfulposs ess i on of a fi r ea r m c o ul d b e wor se tha n fede r alpe na l ti es . The n, in reference to th e prison se nt en ce th at M ont gom ery f aced i n the federa l sy ste m , H ei ser ad d ed, “[ w ] el l, i fyo u g e tt i me, y o u’ r e n o tg o i ngt o g e t1 0 y e a r s . ” Hei s e r ma de th is statem en t based on his kn ow led ge of M ont gom ery’s c rim in al h ist o r y , b u t a s w ith th e s ta te m en t in th e ro ll ca ll room , he ap p aren tly d id not kn ow t h a t M ont gom ery w oul d qualifyas an Arm ed Caree r Cri m i nal and that M o nt g o m er y i ns te ad faced a m an dat o r y min i m um s en tence o ffi ftee n yea rs . I mme d i a t e l y f o l l o win gthi s c o mme n t, Wi l l i a ms r e t u r n e d w i th th e E a s tS t

. L o u i s ad v i c e o fr i g h t s f o r m. W i l l i ams t o l d M o nt g o m ery t o i ni ti ale ac h l i ne o fthe f o r m i fh e u n d e r s t o o d th e a c c o mp a n y i n gr i g h t

. Wi l l i a ms ad vis ed M on tg o m er y t h at h e h ad th e rig h t t o re m ain si l e nt

. M o nt g o mer y the n a s k e d the o ffi c e r s i f he ha d t o ta lk to th em if h e in itia led th e fo rm . W i lliam s t old h im th at he ha d to initi al th e form to ind icate th a t h e u n d ersto od hi s r i ghts w hetherhe wanted t o ta lk to them o r no t, a nd tha t i ni ti al i ngthe f o r m di d no t m ea n tha t he had to tal k t o the invest i gat or s. A ftersi gni ng the form , M ontg om er y a ske d i fhe was doi ng so m ethi ng to i ncri m i nate h i m sel f

. H ei serthen produced the a dvic e o fr i ghts f or m ag ain a nd di re cted M on tgo m er y t o the por ti on o fthe f or m te l l i ng hi m that an yt h in g h e s aid t o t h e p olic e c ou ld be u se d ag ain st h im in cou rt. M ont gom ery the n ask ed the inve stigators w hether he coul d s peak to a l aw yer i f he chose not to say an yth ing. T he y resp o n d ed that he cou ld. M ont gom ery8 N o. 08

- 1690

M ont gom er y a rg ues i n h i s appel l at e bri ef s thatHei s eran d 1 W i l l i a m s pu r po s e l y m i ni m i z e d the i m po r t a nc e o fc ou ns e l by telling M on t g om ery tha t inv ok ing his righ t to co u nsel w ou ld j ust give him a c hance t o te ll his side o fthe st ory ( in e ss ence, that c o u n se l w o u l d o n l y a c t a s a so u n d i n g b o a r d fo r M o n t g o m e r y ’s ver s i on ofe ven t s )

. The di s t ri c tc our tf ound at the s uppre s s i on he arin g , ho w ev er, that w he n th e inv estiga tor s re fe r r e d to M ontgom ery’ s abili ty t o tell his s ide ofthe s tory they w ere r e f e r r i ng t o the o ppo r t un i t y t o gi ve a stat e m e nt, n oth i s o pp o r t u n i t y t o s p e a k t o c o u n s e l

. T h e s t a t e me n ti s s l i g h t l y a mb i g u o u s b u tb e c a u s e t he f i n di n g i s n o tc l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , we w ill not d isturb this find ing on ap p eal. then as ked wh etherthi ngs wou ld b e w or se i fhe c hose to t a l k t o a l a wy e r . Th e i nv e s t i g a t o r s r e s po nd e d that t hey coul d not s ay w h at it w oul d do, and that gi vi ng a sta temen two ul d j us tg i v e h i m a n o pp or t un i t y t o t e l l h i s s i de of th e st o r y . M o nt g o m er y the n a g r ee d t o g o a he ad, a nd 1 ga ve a st at em en t of ap p ro x im at ely t h irt y m in u te s. H e t old th e i nv es ti g at o r s th athe an d the o th ero cc upa nt s o fthe carhad bee n dri nki ng and sm oking m ar ij uana pri orto the t ra ffi c st op, and that hi s fi ngerp rint s were on th e wea po n dr o pped atthe s ce ne b ec au se th e o th erpa ss en g er s ha d g i ve n h i m the g un t o g etr i d o f, a nd th at he th r e w i to u tth e win d o w. H ei serand W i l l i am s bo th te sti fi ed at the s up press i on h ea ring tha t M ontg om er y di d not a pp earto be drunk or un d er the influen ce of dru gs at th e tim e of th eir intervi ew , nordi d he appear to be t i re d, sl eepy, o r othe rwis e im p aired. Th e d ist r ic t cou rt’s ruli ng on M ont gom ery’s su ppr es si o n mot i o n f o und tha t he w as co he r en t dur i ngN o. 08

- 1690 9 the c ours e o fthe i nter view a n d w as not i ntoxi cate d or u n d er the i nfl uence o fdrugs w hen he was advi sed o f hi s M i r anda r i ghts. Th e d i str i ct c ourtdeni ed M ontg om er y’ s m oti on t o supp re ss hi s s tat em ent o n Octobe r 31, 20 07, hol ding that M ont gom ery’s statem en t to l a w enforcem en t officers w as volun tary an d m ad e after a know ing an d volun tary w ai vero fhi s M i r anda ri ghts. M ontg om er y then pl ed g u ilt y to the ch arge of unlaw ful posse ssion of a firearm by a pre vi ousl y c onvi cted fel on, res er vi ng the r i ght t o appeal the supp re ssi on o fhi s s tat em ent. T he di str i ct co ur t se nt en ce d M o nt gom er y t o 1 88 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t, five ye ar s’ s u p er vis ed rele as e , an d ord er ed h im t o pa y a fi ne a nd s pe c i a l a s s e s s men t

. T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on W hen r evi ew i ng a m oti on t o supp ress , we re vi ew questi ons ofl aw de nov o an d q u est i ons off act f orcl ear er ro r. Uni t e d S t at e s v . S c hee ts , 1 8 8 F. 3d 829, 836 (7th Cir. 1999 )

. The vo l untariness ofa confess i on i s a m at te r of la w t h at w e re vie w d e n ov o. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gi l l aum , 372 F.3d 848, 855 (7th Cir. 2004). M ontg om er y r ai ses thr ee chal l enges to hi s s tat em ent. Fir st, he cla im s th at H eis er an d W illiam s in d u c ed h is st at ementwi thf al se pr o m i se s o fl en i ency ; s ec o nd, he cl ai m s th at th e st at ementwas no t vo l unt ar y unde r the to ta l i tyofthe ci r cumst an ce s; a nd thi r d, he c l ai m s th atthe p olic e d id n otsc ru p u lou sly h o n o r h is in vo c at ion of h is ri ght t o re m ai n si l ent in hi s fi rs t int er vie w with Ri dd l e. W e ta k e ea chpo i nti n tur n.10 N o. 08

- 1690 A . Fal se pr omises ofl enie ncy M ontg om er y fi rs t argues that hi s s tat em ent was i nd uced by f al se prom i ses of l eni ency f ro m H ei ser . M ontgom er y i s s peci fi cal l y r eferri ng to H ei ser ’ s a ssur ances th athe woul d no t rec ei ve a t eny ea r s en te nc e i n the fede r al sy st em. The di st r i ct co ur t f o und th at th e pr o m i se s wer e noto bj ec ti o nabl e be ca us e th er e was no m isrepres en tation an d becau se, even assu m ing tha t the re was a mis r epr es en ta ti o n, Hei se r ’ s specul at i o n abo ut se nt en ci ngw as not e no ug h t o make the s ta te m en t i nvol untary

. A c o nfe s s i o n i s i nv o l un t a r y i f i t i s the r e s ul t o fco er ci ve p olic e c on d u c t. Se eGi l l aum , 37 2 F.3 d at85 6. The use o f d e c e i t t o o b t a i n a c o n fe s s i o n d o e s n o t ma k e th e co nfess i on i nvolu n tary as l ong as the pol i ce inter ro gat i on w as n otco er c ive

. S e eS o t e l o v . In d i a n a S t a t ePr i s on , 850 F. 2d 1244, 12 51 (7 th Ci r. 19 88)

. A s a fund am ental m at te r, a c o nfes si o n mustb e vo l unt ary underthe to ta l i tyo fthe c ircum stanc es , a nd a c o ur t ev al ua tingthe v o l u n t a r i n e s s o fa c o n fe s s i o n mu s t co ns i d e r a n y p r o mi ses o r re prese ntat ions m ade by inter ro gat i ng o ffi cer s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sp r i ngs , 17 F.3d 192, 194 ( 7th C ir . 1994); H olland v. M cGinnis , 963 F. 2d 1044 , 1050 -52 (7th Cir. 1992). Give n the ri ght c i rcum sta nces, a f al se prom i se of l eni ency m ay be s uffi ci ent t o ove rco m e a per son’s abi l i ty to m ake a ra tion al d ecis i on about the c ours es open to h im

. See U nited Sta te s v . M o ntg o m ery, 14 F. 3d 1189 , 11 94 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( A co nfe ssi on i s co nsid er ed vol untaryi f the s t a t e de mon s t r a t e s tha ti t“ ‘ wa s n o ts e c ur e d thr ough ps ychol ogi calo r physi cali nti m i dati on but ra therwasN o. 08

- 1690 11

H ei s e r wa s a s k e d o n r e - di r e c te x a mi n a t i o n i fh i s s t a t e m en t 2 th a t“ y o u ’ r e n o tg o i n g t o g e tt e n y e a r s ” wa s l i n k e d t o Mo n t g o mery’ s cooperati on, and H ei se r t es ti fie d that i t was not. O ther t e st i m o n y in d i c a t e s t h a tth e st a t e m e n tw a s b a se d o n H e i se r ’s c onfu sion abo utthe m ax i m um s t atut or y pe nal t y, no tabo ut a n y d e a l th a th e p l a n n e d to a r r a n g e w i th th e U .S . A t t o r n e y ’s O ffice if M on tgo m ery ga v e a statem en t. the pr oduct ofa ra ti onali ntel l ect and fr ee w i l l

. ’ ”) (q uoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haddon , 9 2 7F

. 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 5 ( 7th C ir. 19 91 )). “[A ]n em p t y p ro se c u to ria l p ro m ise co u ld preve nt a suspect f ro m m aki ng a ra ti onalchoi ce b y ‘ dist or ting the alternatives am ong w hich the p erson un d er i nt erro gat i on is being as ked to choo se. ’ ” Sp rosty v. B uc hler, 79 F.3d 635, 646 (7th Cir. 1996) ( quo tingWeidn er v. Thieret, 866 F. 2d 958, 96 3 ( 7th Ci r. 198 9)); s e e also U ni t e d S t at e s v. B aldw in , 60 F. 3d 363, 36 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( general l y, f al se prom i se ofl eni ency m ade i n or der ind uce a confess i on is a forbidd en tactic). T h e p ar tie s a gr ee th at H eis er to ld M on tg om er y t h at if he was s en te nc ed to pr i so n t i m e o n th e fede r alc ha r g es he woul d notge t t enye ar s. H o wev er, a s th e te st i m o ny a t th e s up p ression h earing bore ou t, th ose p roclam ations w ere not tied to an y con fession or statem en t on M o n t g o m ery’s p ar t. H eis er d id n otp ro m is e M on tg om er y t h at h e w ou ld not re cei ve a t en ye arse ntence i f h e c o nfessed ; he s ai d that M o nt g o m er y woul d no t r ec ei ve t eny ea r s from the fede r als y st em. M o nt g o m er y fr eque nt l y r ai se d c o nc erns 2 about bei ng tr i ed on fe d eralchar ges r atherthan sta te charg es, and H ei serto l d him ( i ncor re ctl y, i t turned out) that the m osthe c oul d expect f orfedera l fel on- i n-posses -12 N o. 08

- 1690 si on char ges was ten yea rs . T h e in for m ati on that Heis er gave hi m was i naccurat e, but M ontg om er y w as not prom i sed a ten y ea r sente nce i fhe c onfess ed orm ade a sta tem ent. Thi s co urt has pre vi ously acknow l edged that an ill us i ve pr o m i se o fl en i en cyi n e xc ha ng e f o r a c o nfess i on pre sents “a di ffi cul t ca se. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kont ny, 23 8 F

. 3d 815, 81 8 ( 7th C ir. 2001)

. The m er e f act th at H ei se r m i ss ta te d th e po te nt i al se nt en ce s in the federa l s ys tem does notm ake the i nter ro gat i on co er ci ve, how eve r, es peci allywh en the purport ed sente nce was no t l i nk ed to M o nt g o m er y ’ s wi l l i ng ne ss to ta lk to the in ve s t i g a t or s. Se e, e . g. , Frazi e rv. Cupp , 39 4 U.S

. 73 1, 73 9 (1969) (poli ce m isrepres en tation of anoth er sus p ect’s st at ementwas r el ev an t to v o l unt ar in es s o fc o nfes si o n, b u t ins u fficie n t t o m ak e t h e c on fes sio n inv olu n ta ry ); Sotel o , 850 F. 2d at 1251 ( “decepti on byan inter ro gat ordoes not au tom aticall y i nv ali d ate a con fession”). M ontg om er y c onte nd s that thi s ca se shou ld b e deci ded u n d e r a p e r s e r u l e o fs u p p r e s s i o n d e r i v e d fr o m Bram v. U nited Sta tes , 1 68 U .S. 5 32 (1 89 7). T h e Su p re m e C ou rth eld i n Bram , ci ti ng va ri ous c om m on l aw autho ri ti es, thata c o n fe s s i o n p r o c u r e d “ e i th e r b y fl a t t e r y o r hope

. . . h o weve r sl i ghtl y the em oti ons m ay be i m pla nted, i s no t adm i ssibl e e vi dence; f orthe l aw w i l l n ot suffera pri sone r to be m ad e t h e d elu d ed ins tr u m en t o f h is ow n co n vic tio n .” Id. at54 7. Thi s par ticularst ate m ent, wh i ch w as not a s t a t e me n tb y th e Co u r tb u tr a th e r a qu o t a t i o n fr o m a tr eat i se ci ted i n the opi ni on’ s r eview of com m on l aw sour ces, i s o ne thatcr im i nal defendants fre quentl y use to supp or t a br oad r eadi ng o fthe case c re ati ng a re quir em ent o fperse r eve rs ali fi nvest i gat or s m ade a n y so rto fN o. 08

- 1690 13 p ro m ise atall to a su sp ec t p r i or to a c on fes sio n . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo ng, 85 2 F

. 2d 975, 98 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) (Ea sterbrook

. J

. , conc urring) (“ Bram h a s n o te xc l ud e d a c o nfe s s i o n i n de c a de s ; i ti s a de r e l i c t, o ffe r i ngf al se ho pe to su sp ec ts an d v e x i n g jud ge s w h o m u st d ist in gu ish it on the way to deci si ons re ached on o thergr ounds. I t i s a so u rc e o f p oin tle ss lit i g a t i o n . . . ”). In d ee d , Bram ’ s s tat eme n tth a t“ [ t ] h e l a w c a n n o tme a s u r e th e f o r c e o ft he i nfl ue nc e us ed, o r de ci d e upo n i ts e ffec t upo n the min d of the pri sone r, and there f or e excl ud es the decla ra ti on i fany degre e o fi nfl uence has bee n exer ted, ” Bram , 16 8 U. S

. a t 56 5, i s i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe c ur r en t to ta l i tyo fthe c irc u m st an c es ap p ro ac h

. See Fra z ier, 39 4 U.S

. at73 9. Th i s c i r c ui th a s n o tr e a d Bram as cr ea ti n g a p er se ru le re quir i n g su pp re ssi on wh eneve r a pro m i se ori nd ucem ent i s m ade to a suspect

. Lon g, 852 F.2d at97 7; see also U nite d State s v . B aldw in , 60 F. 3d 363, 365 (7th Cir. 1995). M ont gom ery’s read ing of Bram was deci si vel y r ej ected bythe S upr eme Co ur t i n A rizon a v. Fulm inante, 499 U

. S. 285 ( 1991 ) , w hen the Court sta ted that Bram “u nde r c ur r en t pr ec ede ntdo es no t st at e the st an dar d f o r de te r m i ni ng the v ol untariness ofa confess i on . . . ” Id. a t2 8 5

. Mo n t g o mer y obj ects thatthe Su p re m e Cour t ci ted no author i ty for its aban d onm en t of Bram , b utthe Co ur t’ s state m ent about B r a m ca m e i n th e c onte xto fa di sc us si o n o fthe sta te suprem e co urt’ s deci si on o n Ful m i nante’ s ca se, i ncl ud i ngtha tc o ur t ’ s c i t a t i o ns t o the mo de r n c a s e l aw est abl i shi ng the to tal i ty oft h e c irc um sta nces as the r el eva n t t es t. Id

. a t2 8 5

- 8 6

. A n d , i n a ny ev e n t, th e S u p r e me Court does not n ee d to ci te author i ty w hen r evi si ng o r l i mi t i n gi t s o wnc a s e l a w.14 N o. 08

- 1690 M ontg om er y then cl ai m s that Bram was r ev i ve d b y the S upr eme Co urt’s r ec en t dec i si o n i n D i s t r i ctof Col um b i a v. Heller, 128 S. C t. 2 7 8 3 (2 00 8). Hellers tr uckdo wn W as hi ng to n D. C. ’ s ha ndg un b anb ec au se i t was inc ons i st en t wi th the o r i g i na l u nd e r s tandingo fthe S e c o nd Amen dm en t. The o pi ni o n i n Helleral so too k i ssue w i th a diss enting op inion’s use of U nit e d S ta tes v. M iller, 30 7 U.S

. 174 ( 1939 ) , since that opi ni on did notpurportto be a thor ough disc ussi on o fthe hi storyo fthe Se cond A m endm ent. Heller, 1 28 S

. Ct. at 28 15

. M o nt g o m er y no w cl ai m s th atthe o r i g i na l i sto pi ni o n i n Hellerr evived opi ni ons such as Bram , wh i ch he c l ai m s was a thor ough hi sto ryo fthe Fi fth A m endm ent in contr astto Fulm inante, and thu s o ver rul es Fulm inanteo r l i mi t s i t s a pp l i c a t i o n t o F o ur t e e nth Am e nd

m en t D u e P ro c es s C lau se ca se s. (T h e la tt e r , w e n ot e, is an o dd s ug g es ti o n tha t woul d s er i o us l y unde r m i ne the j ur i spr ude nc e i nc o r po rating th e Fif th A m en dm en t thro ugh the Du e Pr oce ss Clause

. ) To the exte n t that M o nt g o mer y b e l i e v e s tha t H e l leradopts a new canon of c on st itu tio n a l int er p re ta tio n for a m en d m en ts w h olly se p ar at e fro m th at d isc u ss ed i n t h e c as e, an d th at it o v e r r u l e s o r l i mi t s u nr el at ed l i n e s o fc a s e l a w sub si le ntio , w e decl i ne to r ead thatm uch i nto the o pin i on a nd do not fi nd i tc o nt r o l l i ngo n the i s s ue s p r e s e nt e d. I n shor t, wh i l e Heis erwas m i sta ken about the pr i son sen ten ce t ha t M ont gom ery faced i n th e federa l cou rt sys tem , hi s s tat em ents that M ontg om er y would notse rv e te n ye ar s p u rs u an t t o fe d er al c h a r ge s w as n otm ad e in or der t o i nd uce a confession

. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct cou rt that M ont gom ery d id n o t m ake an inv olun tary s t a t e me n ti n r e s p o n s e t o th e m.N o. 08

- 1690 15 B. Voluntari ness un der t he t ot al i ty o ft he ci r cum st ances M ontgom er y m ake s a num bero fpoi nts in an e ff or t t o sh o w tha t hi s st at ementwas i nv o l unt ar y unde r the totality ofthe circu m stan ces. H e states that H eiser i nc orrectly i nform ed him that other p assen gers in the ca r had to giv e sta te m en ts , w h en in re alit y ne ith er h ad , an d fals ely cl ai m ed hi s prints were f oun d o n the gun. H e a l so ci tes the i nvest i gat or s’ cl ai m thati t w as a possibi l i ty that federa l c h ar ges m ay not have been bro ught i fM ontgom er y had g i ven a state m ent t o Riddle ea rl i erthatday, and argues that th e in vesti gat or s wanted to gi ve M ontgom er y the i m press i on that he w as hurti ng hi m sel fby r efus i ngt o s pea kt o the m . He a ckno wl edg es that the i nv es ti g at o r s to l d hi m he c ou ld sp ea kwi tha l awy er, b ut sa ys th ey sh ou ld h av e t old h im th e in t e rv iew w ou ld t e r mi n a t e i fh e r e q u e s t e d t o s p e a k wi th a l a wy e r . He al so s ta te s th atthe p ro ce dur e o fha vinghi m r ea d a nd i n i t i a l a n a d v i c e o f r i g h t s f o r m u n d e r mi n ed th e signifi can ce of th e p roced ure . Finally, he cites his bord erl i ne i nt el l i g en ce a nd c l ai m s th atthi s pl ac es hi m i n the l o w bo r der l i ne r an g e o fi nt el l ec tu al ab i l i ti es , a nd thus m ade hi m mor e su sc ept ibl e to po l i ce c o er ci o n. T his cou rt has held t h a t “[a] con fession is volun tary if, in the totali ty of circum stan ces, i t is the ‘prod uc t of a ra ti onalinte l l ect and f re e w i l l and n ot the r esul t o fphysi cal abuse, psychol ogi cali nti m i dati on, o r decepti ve i nter ro gation tact ics that hav e overcom e the de fend an t’s free w il l. ’ ” U nite d State s v. H uer ta , 23 9 F

. 3d 865, 87 1 (7th C ir. 20 01) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i l l on , 150 F.3d 754 , 757 (7th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) )

. F i nd i ngtha tthe p o l i c e e ng a g e d in c o e rci ve16 N o. 08

- 1690 acti vi ty i s a nece ssa ryp re d i cate to fi nd i ng tha t a su sp ec t’s co n fes sio n w as inv olu n ta ry . See Colorado v. C onnelly, 47 9 U.S. 15 7, 167 ( 1986 )

. W e dete rm i ne wh ether pol i ce c onduct w as coe rci ve by exam i ni ng f acto rs such a s “the de fen dan t’ s ag e, e duca ti o n, i nt el l i g en ce l ev el, a nd m en ta l state; the l en g tho fthe de fen dan t’ s det en ti o n, the nature o fthe i nter ro gat i ons; the i ncl usi on o fadvi ce ab o utco ns ti tu ti o na l ri g ht s; and the use o fphy si ca l puni sh

m ent, i ncl ud i ng depri vati on o ff oo d or sl eep. ” H uer ta , 239 F. 3d at 871. A s we expl ai ned abov e, we do not fi nd that the invest i gator s pro m i sed a l i ghterse ntence orm or e f avo rabl e t re atm e nti n e xc ha ng e f o r a c o nfe s s i o n o r s t a t e men tf ro m M o nt g o m er y . M ont g o m ery do es no t cl ai m tha t he suffer ed any ki nd o fphysi calpunishm ent o r coe rcion, o r that the invest igat or s depri ved hi m o ff oo d orsl eep pri or to the inter vi ew s. W i th respectto H ei ser ’ s incor re ct an swe r t o M o nt g o m er y ’ s que st i o n abo utwhethe r the othe r passenge rs i n the car “had ” t o gi ve a s tat em ent, that w oul d not o verbearM ontg om er y’ s fre e w il l

. M ontgom er y had al re ady be en advi sed o fhi s right not to gi ve a s tat em ent e ar l i erthatday in hi s m eet i ng with Riddle , an d was o nc e m o r e adv i se d o fhi s r i g htno t to spe ak to the i nvest i gat or s pri orto gi vin g his vi deotaped st ate m ent. M ont go m er y’ s deci si on notto speakto Ri dd l e e ar l i er th atda y, a nd h i s ba ck

- an d- f o r thwi thHei se r a nd W i l l i ams o n h i s r i g htt o r emai n si l en t pr i o r t o g i ving th e videot ap ed statem en t, d e m ons trate th at he un d ersto od thi s r i ght. The m er e f act that H ei serw as w ro ng wh en he sta ted th at th e t w o ot h er su sp ec ts h ad giv en st at em en ts w ou ldN o. 08

- 1690 17
not rend er M ont gom ery’s st a tem en t involun tary, either. H eise r did notsa y that those st ate m ents i m pli cate d M ont gom ery, an d the d istri ct court d id not fi nd any effort “r isin g t o t h e le ve l of tric ke ry .” E ve n if H eis er h ad to ld Mo n t g o me r y th a tth e o t h e r p a s s e n g e r s i mp l i c a t e d h i m, ther e i s no r ule fi nd i ng such c onduct necess ar i l y c oer ci ve. Infac t, p re c ed en t h old s th at a p olic e o ffice r m ay “a c tiv ely m i sl ead” a suspectpri orto obtaini ng a sta tem ent o r confess i on s o l ong as a r ati onaldeci si on r em ai ns poss ibl e. U ni t e d St at e s v. Rut l e dge, 900 F. 2d 1127, 1131 (7th Cir. 1990); s eeals o U nite d State s ex rel

. Hall v. D irec tor, D ep’tof Corre ct i ons , 57 8 F

. 2d 194 ( 7th Ci r. 19 78) ( no ips o f ac t o coe rci on w hen pol i ce t ol d a suspect, wrongl y, thatco- defe nd ants had i m pli cate d h im as the ri ngl eader )

. I n thi s ca se M ontgomer y was ful l y a dvi se d o fhi s r i g ht s pr i o r t o making a state m en t, an d any beli ef th at his tw o fel low pa ssen gers h ad a l s o s p ok en to th e p olic e w ou ld n otp re ve n t h im f ro m m aki ng a ra ti onaldeci si on about hi s o pti ons. H ei serand W i l l i am s’ st ate m ents that an ea rl i erst ate

m ent m ay have kept the c as e at the s tat e l eve l, and that th eyc o ul d no t sa y whata l awy er ’ s pr es en ce woul d e ffec tu

ate were not f al se prom i ses o fl eni ency i n ex c h ange f or coop er ati on norev en r eal l y dece pti ve. Both s tat em ents w er e n on -c om m itt al. W h ile th ey m ay n oth av e fu lly appri sed M ontg om er y o fthe l ega l l andscape, su c h o m i ssi ons ar e no t inhe re n tl y c oer ci ve behavi oro n the part of the pol i ce. The go ver nm ent a cknowle dges that M ontg om er y has bor derline intel l i gence , but thi s f acto r al one does not re sul t in a fi nd i n g ofco er ci on. A t the ti m e o fhi s a rr est,18 N o. 08

- 1690 M ontg om er y was approxi m at ely f or ty yea rs o l d and had p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e wi th th e c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e s y st em. He appe ar ed wel l a war e o fwhatwas g o i ngo n thr o ug ho ut the quest i oni ng: H e underst oo d the di ffer ence between th e fede ral an d state crim inal j us tice syste m , h e u n d erst oo d th at h e d id n otn ee d to gi v e a s t a te m en t in h is i nterview w i thRi ddl e, a nd i n f ac t di d no t; a nd he noti ced the differ ences between the tw o advi ce o fr i ghts f or m s he w as asked t o sign. Per haps m ostsi gni fi cant o f al l, he ask ed re l evant questi ons about hi s ri ghts pri or to gi vi ng hi s s tat em ent t o the o ffi cer s. W h ile w e t ake ac co unto fM o nt g o m er y ’ s i nt el l i g en ce whende te r m i ni ng whethe r hi s st at ementwas v o l unt ar y, we do no t fi nd that i t f atal l y a ffecte d the s tat em ent in thi s ca se. F i na l l y, we no te tha t th e di strict c o ur t f o und n o evi dence that M ontg om er y was i ntoxi cate d, exhausted o r o the r wi s e i nc a pa c i t a t e d. T he wi tne s s e s a tthe s up pr es si o n h ea r i ng, fr o m Kel l ert o Ri ddl e to W i l l i ams a nd H ei se r, a l l t es ti fi ed th at M o nt g o m er y was c o he r en t an d d id n otap p ea r to be int ox ica te d or s lee p d ep riv ed . W h ile he and the othe r occupants ofthe carwere, acc or ding to sta tem ents, dri nki ng and sm oki ng m ar ij uana pri orto K eller’ s t ra ffi c st op, thi s be havi orapparent l y di d not affect hi s cho i ce t o gi ve a s tat em ent. I n l i g hto fthe t o ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s, we co nc ur w i th the di s t r i c tc o ur ttha tMo nt g o mer y ma de a r a t i o na l ch o i ce t o g i ve a s ta te m en t to W il li ams a nd Hei se r a nd that hi s s tat em ent was noti nvol untary o r th e r esul t o f po l i ce c o er ci o n.N o. 08

- 1690 19 C. Sc rupul ousl y h onor i ng M ontg o me ry ’ s r i g htt o c ut o f fqu e s t i o ni ng M ont gom ery’s l ast a r g um en t is th at th e investigators did notscr up ulo usl y ho n or h is i nvocat i on o fhi s r i ght t o r emai n s i l en t. I n M ich iga n v . M o sley, 4 23 U. S

. 9 6 ( 19 75 ) , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that the adm i ssibi l i ty ofst ate m ents ob ta in ed aft er a d efe n d an t in vo ke s h is ri g h t t o rem ain s i l e nt i s de pe nd e nt o n whe the r the de fe nd a nt ’ s r i ght t o cut o ffquesti oni ng was “sc rupulo usl y h onor ed. ” 4 23 U

. S. at10 3. The C ourtse t f or th se ver alnonexcl usi ve fac to rs to d et er m in e w h et h er int er ro ga tio n w as p ro p e rly re su m ed

. Id. The se factor s i nc l ude “ ani nqui r y i nt o the amoun t of ti m e th atl aps ed be twe eni nt er r o g at i o ns ; the s c o p e o fth e s e c o n d i n t e r r o g a ti o n ; wh e th e r n e w M i r anda w arning s were gi ven; and the degre e t o w hi ch pol i ce offi cer s pursued furtheri nter ro gat i on on c e the suspect had in vo ked hi s r i ght t o si l ence. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc hwe ns ow , 151 F. 3d 650, 65 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( ci ti ng M o sley, 42 3 U .S. at 1 04 -05 ); a cco rd U ni t ed St at e s v. Gi l l aum , 37 2 F

. 3d 8 48 , 8 56 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. I n Sc hwe ns ow , a fte r the d efend an t invoked his rig h t to rem ain sil en t, officers lat er q u es tio n ed h im ab ou t t h e s am e c rim e. Sc hwe ns ow , 15 1 F. 3d at 659. W e hel d that “ the c onst i tuti onal i ty ofa subseque ntp o l i c e i nt e r v i e w de pe nd s n o to n i t s s ubj ect m at te r b utr athe r o n whe th erthe po l i ce , i n c o nduc ting th e interview , sough t to un d erm ine th e d efend an t’s re sol ve to re m ai n si l ent. ” W e co ncl ud ed that such an a p p r o a c h “ n a t u r a l l y f o l l o ws fr o m M o sley ” be cause M o sley did notel evat e “ any o ne f acto r as predom i nant o r d ispositive nor s u g gest[] that th e enu m erated f acto rs ar e e xhausti ve. ” Id

.20 N o. 08

- 1690 M on tg om er y in vo ke d h is rig h t t o re m ain silen t in h is i nte r v i e w wi th Ri ddl e , a nd que s t i o ningthe n c e a s e d. Ho we v e r, l a t e r i n th e r o l l c a l l r o o m H e i s e r a n d Wi l l i a ms sp ok e to M on tg om er y w ith ou t re-a p p ra isin g him o fh is M i r anda r i gh ts . Oste nsibl y, the i nvest i gat or s di d not in te n d to qu es tio n M on tg om er y a b ou t t h e s p ec ifics of h is ca se . Hei se r di d, ho wev er, s ta te that h e w as a t th e pol i ce s tat ion because i t a pp ear ed that M ontg om er y was a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o r a fi r e a r m. H e a l s o t o l d Mo n t g o mer y tha t th e g un wo ul d b e te st ed f o r fi ng er pr i nt s an d that M ontg om er y’ s pri n ts m i ght b e o n i t ( i n w hi ch cas e the c harg es w oul d com e ba ck to hi m )

. Eventu al l y, M ontgom er y a gr eed to gi ve a state m ent, w as gi ven a se cond set of M i r anda warni ngs, and then g av e a vi deotaped st ate

m en t i n whi chhe di sc us se d hi s po ss es si o n o fthe g un. T he d efend an t a d m its th at th e fac ts of th is case are very si m i l arto U nite d State s v. W yatt, 1 79 F

. 3d 53 2 ( 7th Cir. 19 99 ). Inth at ca se , d efe n d an t in vo ke d h i s r i g h t t o re m ain sil en t and the p oli ce cea sed qu estioning him

. H ow ever, afte r se ve r al ho ur s pas se d th e o ffi ce r s co nfr o nted the d e fe n d a n ta g a i n a nd o u t l i n e d th e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s th i m. The defe nd ant then agre ed to m ake a sta tem ent, and ga ve one a ft e r a secon d roun d of M i r anda warni ngs. W e no ted th atthe o ffi ce r s’ di sc us si o n o fthe e vi den ce agai ns t th e de fe nd a nt, b e f o r e the s e c o nd r o un d o f wa r ning s , was a “m isstep , ” bu t w as no t by itselfa viol ation of M o sley

. Id. at 538 . W e a l so rej ecte d defendant’ s co ntenti on that M o s leyr equi re s o ffi cer s t o re str i ct r enewed i nter ro gat i on to cr im es unrel ate d to thos e a suspecthad ear l i er r efus ed to di sc us s. Ra th er, a s w e st at ed i n Sc hwe ns ow , the tes t was notthe su b j ec t m att erbut w hetherthe pol i ceN o. 08

- 1690 21

so u gh t t o u n d er m in e t h e s u sp ec t’s res olv e t o re m ain sil ent

. Thi s te sta cc o r ds wi ththe b r o ade r pur po se o fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s o p i ni o n i n M o sley. Tha t o pi ni o n s o ug ht a m i dd le gr ound between, o n the one hand , a bl anket i mmun i t y f r o m fu r th e r c u s t o d i a l q u e s t i o n i n g b y a ny o ffi ce r o n a ny s ubj ec t o nc e a su spect h as i nv o k ed th e r i g htt o s i l e nc e , a nd, o n the o the r h a nd , r e pe a t e d r o un ds ofi nter ro gat i on with onl y m om entary re spi tes wh en a s u sp ec t b re ak s o ff qu es tio n in g. S ee M o sley, 423 U

. S. at 102- 03. Lik e W yatt, i n thi s ca se t w o fa cto rs weigh i n f avo r of supp re ssi on: The o fficers outl i ned the e vi dence ag ai nst Mo n t g o me r y b e f o r e g i v i n gh i m r e n e we d M i r anda war ni ngs, and the disc ussi on i nvol ved the s am e cr i m e a s M ontgome r y ’ s fi r s ti nt e r v i e w wi th Ri ddl e . We c o nc l ud e tha t these f acto rs ar e insuffi ci ent t o re quir e supp re ssi on. W hen He i s e r q u e s t i o n e d Mo n t g o me r y i n th e r o l l c a l l r o o m, h e t rie d to lim i t t h e s u b j ec t m at te r b y s ta tin g t h at h e d id not w ant to di scuss the f acts o fM ontg om er y’ s ca se. Ou tl i ni ng the ev i dence ag ai nst M ontg om ery ( ordi scus sings uche vi den ce hy po th et i ca l l y, i n th e cas e o fthe fi nger pri nt evi dence) was a m i sst ep, si m i l arto the m i sst ep i n W yatt

. Th e possibi l i ty ofM ontg om er y g i vi ng a sta tem en t, ho wev er, ar o se o nl y be ca us e M o nt g o m er y v o l unt e e r e d th e i n f o r ma t i o n th a tth e g u n d i d n o tb e l o n gt o h i m. M on tg om er y a rg u es th at th e p olic e c on d u c t in th is ca se was wor se tha n the c o nduc t i n W yatt bec ause here , un li k e i n W

yatt, the po l i c e wa i t e d un t i l M o nt g o mer y was ups ta i r s in an int er vi ew r o o m b efo r e g i vinghi m a s ec o nd set of M i r anda w ar n in gs . W e d o n ot se e an yt h in g s u sp i-22 N o. 08

- 1690

c iou s in th e t im in g of t h e w ar n in gs . M on tg om er y d id receive a secon d set of M i r anda war ni ng s be f o r e g i ving hi s v i deotaped state m ent a nd the l apse in ti m e be tw een th e en d o fthe di sc us si o n i n the roll ca l l r o o m a nd the se c on d se t o fw a r n in gs in t h e in te rv iew roo m m ay w ell have been to M ontg om er y’ s be nefi t, as i t would g i ve hi m t i m e to c o l l ec t hi m se l fa nd c o nsider w he th erhe want ed to g i ve a s ta te m en t bef o r e co m m i tt i ngt o do i ng so. W hi l e the pol i ce worki n thi s ca se w as not exem p l ar y, th e circum stan ces do not su ggest that th e i nv estigators att em pted to und er m i ne M ontg om er y’ s r eso l ve to rem ain s i l en t. M o nt g o m er y ’ s r i g htt o c uto ffque st i o ni ng w as resp ecte d , and he w as ap p rised of h is r ig h ts before givin g a s t atem en t. W e find no viol ation of M o sley, a nd no ba si s f orsuppress i ng the st ate m ent.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM th e d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ng o n the m oti on t o supp re ss.

2- 13- 09